LingPoet: Journal of Linguistics and Literary Research
Journal homepage: https://talenta.usu.ac.id/lingpoet
Using Communicative Language Teaching to Instruct ESL at The University Level
Obaidul Rahman Emon
11Department of English, Daffodil University
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received 11 January 2024 Revised 25 January 2024 Accepted 29 January 2024 Available online 31 January 2024
E-ISSN: 2745-8296 P-ISSN: -
The study of how people learn languages has always fascinated researchers and has been a constant source of inspiration for both teachers and linguists. Within the spectrum of changing teaching methods, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is a prominent approach that emphasizes the development of effective communication skills in learners. The global recognition of this organization grew rapidly since its establishment in the 1970s, fueled by the necessity for language learners to develop effective communication abilities. However, the implementation of this approach faces several challenges because of the discrepancies between educators and this method. Chomsky (1957) emphasizes that in the field of language acquisition, important aspects include vocabulary, sentence structure, sound patterns, and word formation. This differs from Hymes (1971) claim, which includes aspects such as grammar, meaning, social context, and practical use of language. The theoretical frameworks proposed by Hymes (1971) and other scholars lead to a significant change in thinking, driving the progress of communicative language teaching in second language education.
Unlike the Grammar-Translation method, the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) method provides learners with more opportunities to develop their ability to communicate effectively. This method greatly emphasizes the active involvement of learners in the second language classroom, which is not commonly seen in traditional teaching approaches. This study thoroughly examines the use of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the context of teaching English as a second language. This text specifically discusses the evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) compared to outdated teaching methods, the current trends observed in CLT, and the challenges faced in implementing it in a university setting. The purpose of this elucidation is to provide educators with a thorough understanding of CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) while also offering suggestions for incorporating CLT into the university setting. This includes guidance on organizing classroom activities and strategies for motivating students.
Keyword: Audio-lingual, Communicative Language Teaching, Effectiveness, Accuracy of Language, Language Teaching
How to cite:
Emon, O.R. (2024). Using Communicative Language Teaching to Instruct ESL at The University Level. LingPoet:
Journal of Linguistics and Literary Research, 5(1), 31-41.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International.
32 1. Introduction
English is the fourth most widely spoken language worldwide and plays a crucial role in international communication. Hence, the teaching and learning of English consistently captivate the interest of educators and scholars worldwide. This concentration becomes stronger when considering English education for university students who will soon enter the workforce after completing their studies. Despite the common belief that university students possess a high level of English proficiency as a result of years of studying the language, the situation in Vietnam and other Asian countries actually shows a range of English skills influenced by different educational backgrounds and levels of ability. This is an important factor to consider when learning a language as culture can influence the way a person learns and uses a language. For example, some learners may have difficulty understanding idioms or slang if they are not familiar with the culture (Dey, 2023).
University students, coming from diverse backgrounds including urban, rural, and remote areas, often view English as a challenging academic endeavor, despite their strong desire to become proficient in the language in order to enhance their career opportunities. The performance outcomes of students in Vietnam, which align with findings from studies conducted by Abahussain (2016); Al-Nasser (2015); Alsalmi (2014); and Batawi (2007) in similar settings, demonstrate a relatively low level of English proficiency. The deficiency in second language acquisition among university students can be attributed to various factors, including inadequate teaching effectiveness and quality, lack of genuine opportunities for English language interaction with native speakers. This is supported by the research conducted by Souriyavongsa et al. (2013) at the National University of Laos.
To improve the quality of English teaching and learning in the university context, it is necessary to make comprehensive changes in various areas. An important aspect that deserves careful examination is the teaching methods used by instructors. This is because instructors typically play a significant role in shaping the learning environment in the classroom. Therefore, careful consideration of teaching methods becomes essential in strengthening the effectiveness of English education at the university level.
English teachers require effective teaching methods to engage and motivate their students, promoting improvements in their English language skills. English teachers often familiarize themselves with various conventional teaching methodologies, including the Grammar-Translation method, Direct method, Audio lingual method, Community Language Learning, (De)Suggestopedia, Silent Way, and Total Physical Response. Nevertheless, when conventional approaches prove inadequate in achieving the requirements of effective communication and interactive results Dos Santos (2019), modern instructional frameworks have arisen to correspond with the changing field of English language education. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), Content-Based Instruction (CBI), and Task-Based Instruction (TBI) have been implemented to meet the specific needs of contemporary English education.
Computer-assisted language teaching (CLT), which focuses on spoken communication, has been successful in meeting learners' needs for effective communication skills. However, its use is still limited, especially in university environments. The researcher aims to clarify responses to three crucial inquiries by synthesizing research on CLT.
Research Questions:
(1) What are the advantages of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the teaching methods of English as a second language?
(2) What limitations does the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach have when it comes to instructing and acquiring English as a second language for university students?
(3) What are the most effective ways to implement the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach in the instructional framework of English as a second language in a university setting?
2. Literature Review
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has arisen as a reaction to the changing requirements in the field of English language acquisition and education. Prior to the emergence of CLT, the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) maintained a long-lasting dominance. Supporters of natural language acquisition argue that teaching language by demonstrating and acting out the meaning, rather than relying on translation or the learner's native language, improves the effectiveness of language education (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p.11).
The most effective way to learn a language is through extensive exposure and engaging in authentic conversations, similar to acquiring one's native language.
Conventional approaches, which emphasize grammar and translation, frequently fail to foster a setting that
33 promotes natural language learning. On the other hand, Contrastive Linguistics Teaching (CLT), known for its inventive methodology, promotes the application of both general and linguistic knowledge in order to address practical situations like conversation, negotiation, persuasion, and decision-making (Riggenbach &
Lazaraton, 1991, p.125). Integrating authentic and realistic activities into Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) helps improve learners' English skills and boosts their confidence in using the language for communication (Dey, 2021).
CLT, which was first introduced in the 1970s, has been widely accepted in many countries (Kachru, 1992;
Pennycook, 1994; Phillipson, 1992). According to Thompson (1996), CLT is a substitute for traditional methods such as GTM. It focuses on meaningful communication, which requires both input and output in a communicative manner. While traditional methods may effectively teach grammar and vocabulary, they often fail to provide students with the necessary confidence to engage in conversations with English speakers, as they lack real-life communicative experiences. According to Widdowson (1990, p.159), CLT is described as an instructional method that enables learners to effectively use language for real-life purposes. It focuses on tasks that involve concepts, notions, and meaningful activities, rather than isolated grammar rules or language skills.
Nunan (1991) outlines five essential characteristics of CLT, which include a focus on acquiring communication skills in the target language, utilization of genuine texts, provision of opportunities for language growth, incorporation of personal experiences in classroom exercises, and integration of academic tasks with extracurricular activities. Expanding on these characteristics, Canale & Swain (1980, p.4) delineate four communicative proficiencies of CLT, which include grammatical proficiency, sociolinguistic proficiency, discourse proficiency, and strategic proficiency. Bachman (1990) classifies these competencies into two distinct categories: organizational competence and pragmatic competence.
CLT emphasizes the capacity to use language effectively and understand it in practical, everyday scenarios (Kiato & Kiato, 1996). The primary objective of CLT is to utilize a wide range of knowledge, encompassing both general and linguistic aspects, in meaningful tasks and activities that simulate real-life situations. This approach seeks to develop multiple language skills in learners, such as maintaining conversation even with limited language proficiency, using language for different purposes and functions, understanding various types of texts, and using appropriate language in different settings, whether formal or informal (Richards, 2006). In addition, CLT functions as a channel for enhancing learners' overall knowledge by incorporating new information into their long-term memory through associations with real-life events and activities (Doughty &
Long, 2003, p.58). Authentic materials, which contain cultural insights and knowledge across various domains, ranging from scientific subjects to everyday life, provide learners with current information that is crucial for success in both professional and personal contexts.
The interaction between the roles of teacher and student establishes a clear difference between traditional and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) classrooms. In conventional educational environments, teachers adopt an authoritative position, embodying a teacher-centric approach. In this situation, students are limited in their ability to actively participate and adapt, which is in stark contrast to CLT environments where students are the central focus of the teaching and learning process. In Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) classes, students have more control over classroom activities. Their active involvement in class leads to corresponding advantages, as suggested by Kennedy (2002), emphasizing the wide range of opportunities and flexibility that CLT provides for both teachers and students. In this context, teachers assume the roles of supervisors and facilitators, actively involving and assisting students in their active participation in these activities. Furthermore, the learner-centered philosophy of CLT enhances the emphasis on the students' responsibilities within the learning framework (Swalmeh & Dey, 2023).
Nevertheless, the implementation of CLT in various university settings faces complex challenges that require detailed discussions to find appropriate solutions. The introduction of a novel approach often faces initial obstacles and opposition. Educators generally acknowledge the effectiveness of CLT but struggle with determining if it is suitable for their classrooms (Dos Santos, 2016, 2017). In addition, Tomlimson (2001) emphasizes the limited availability of materials that are compatible with Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). This highlights a discrepancy between the content of textbooks and the collaborative activities associated with CLT, which in turn requires the use of additional content that is not included in the prescribed materials. This predicament presents a difficulty: following textbook activities may impede the conversion of a traditional classroom into a communicative language teaching (CLT) environment, while deviating from the textbook content runs the risk of receiving criticism from supervisors (Ozsevik, 2010). In addition, teachers who are overwhelmed with a heavy workload and inadequate compensation demonstrate a hesitancy to embrace Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) methods (Ozsevik, 2010). Student opposition emerges as
34 an additional challenge, as indicated by Walia's (2012) research, which links reluctance towards Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) activities to limited time and financial resources. West's (2016) study emphasizes that the challenges of implementing CLT successfully are primarily due to the intricate nature of vocabulary and the complexities involved in instruction. There are concerns about the fluency and accuracy of language, as some argue that CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) places more importance on fluency than accuracy. This can lead to significant grammar errors, even among proficient speakers (Nunan, 1989).
The practical application of the Central Limit Theorem (CLT) in specific contexts reveals additional challenges. Contextual conflicts in Asian countries such as Vietnam pose significant obstacles to the implementation of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), particularly due to the presence of large class sizes (Iwashita & Ngoc, 2012; Pham, 2007). Thailand is facing the challenge of dealing with classrooms that are overcrowded and have students with different levels of proficiency, which hinders the effectiveness of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) activities (Saengboon, 2002). South Korea encounters difficulties as a result of inadequately suited materials that are intended for large classes but are not suitable for CLT methodologies (Jung & Norton, 2002). Taiwan identifies cultural factors that hinder the success of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) (Huang & Yang, 2018). Even in the United States, CLT faces challenges due to international students' inclination towards conventional approaches centered around vocabulary and grammar acquisition, which contradicts the communicative emphasis of CLT (Ahn & Kang, 2017; Dos Santos, 2020; Lee & Lee, 2019).
The effective execution of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) relies on the dispositions of both educators and learners. The beliefs held by teachers are crucial in shaping their instructional methods and choices of subject matter. Borg (2017) emphasizes that these beliefs are influenced by a range of factors, such as individual characteristics, previous educational experiences, and pedagogical presumptions. Many educators who have received training in the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) during their pedagogical education possess unique traits and varied practical experiences, which present difficulties when implementing the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach in their classrooms. In addition to this, there is a lack of formal training on CLT, and teachers often have to independently acquire knowledge of new teaching methodologies. This delays the integration of CLT into their instructional practices (Abrejo et al., 2019).
Schulz (1996) and Natividad & Batang (2018) have observed that research on the implementation of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) primarily focuses on the perspective of educators, with minimal investigation from the student's standpoint. The latter argues that university students prefer CLT because it prioritizes collaborative tasks, oral communication, and hands-on learning, which promote authentic language use and meaningful interaction. Students value the shift away from repetitive memorization of grammar rules and view CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) as a means to improve their social abilities through cooperative group tasks.
The behavior of learners plays a significant role in determining the effectiveness of CLT practices. Dos Santos (2020) emphasizes that cultural disparities affect the motivation and engagement of East Asian students in comparison to their Western peers. Different cultural backgrounds can hinder specific communicative language teaching (CLT) activities, such as discussions or debates, because of varying degrees of motivation and engagement (Dey et al., 2023).
The size of the classroom poses a significant obstacle to the implementation of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), especially in university settings where class sizes are typically large, with an average of around 50 students. The high student population presents obstacles to efficient interaction and communication within constrained time periods, impeding teachers from delivering personalized assistance and feedback (Weiner, 2012; Weiner & Jerome, 2016).
There are differing views on how much English should be used in CLT classes. According to Brandl &
Bauer (2002), students at the initial stage of learning prefer teachers to use their first language (L1) more often, particularly for giving directions and ensuring comprehension. On the other hand, more advanced students prefer an increased use of the second language (L2). The dispute regarding the utilization of L1 and L2 in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) environments highlights the necessity for meticulous deliberations.
Thompson (1996) observes that there are misunderstandings among educators when it comes to implementing CLT. Significant misconceptions arise from the belief that CLT entails a lack of grammar instruction, the confusion between pair work and role-playing, and the perception that CLT places excessive demands on teachers due to unforeseen circumstances. Thompson (1996) explains that CLT does not exclude implicit language instruction. He highlights that role-play and pair work have distinct characteristics, with role- play involving genuine interaction and decision-making.
35 Although there are difficulties and misunderstandings, CLT is widely recognized as one of the most efficient approaches for teaching a second language. It offers learners the chance to improve their ability to communicate effectively in both academic and everyday situations. While not universally embraced in university settings, the favorable attitudes of both educators and learners towards CLT highlight its perceived advantages. The implementation of CLT in university settings presents benefits, drawbacks, and obstacles that arise both within and beyond the confines of the classroom. Therefore, teachers are advised to assess the particular circumstances of their educational institutions in a practical manner in order to facilitate the successful implementation of CLT classes.
3. Method
Despite being introduced and applied since the 1970s, the implementation of CLT has not been widespread in Vietnam and other Asian countries, particularly at the tertiary level. Hence, conducting quantitative or qualitative research at a specific university poses significant challenges. This article aims to analyze key aspects regarding the implementation of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in a university setting.
Compiling data from over fifty articles and research studies on Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the context of teaching English as a second or foreign language in Asian universities. This is done because the research conducted in these contexts is comparable to Vietnam, making the analysis and suggestions more applicable and valuable for the future implementation of CLT in teaching English to university students in Vietnam. The article seeks to address three primary questions outlined in the introduction by examining the merits and drawbacks of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the context of English language instruction for non-native speakers. Subsequently, the author provides recommendations for the successful implementation of CLT in English instruction at the college level.
4. Results and Discussion
The comprehensive literature review, which examines CLT from various perspectives, furnishes the author with substantiation to address three primary inquiries.
4.1. Advantages of using CLT in the instruction and acquisition of English as a second language Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) was developed in the 1970s as a response to the limitations of the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) in English language education. CLT has evolved through three distinct stages. CLT, known for its effectiveness in improving learners' ability to communicate, is defined by five essential components outlined by Nunan (1991). Canale & Swain (1980) and Bachman (1990) further emphasize the development of communicative competence that CLT fosters.
CLT focuses on using genuine materials, promoting learner interaction, and combining both general and linguistic knowledge. It aims to create links between the classroom and the real world by using realistic situations. In order to effectively participate in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) activities, learners must develop various competencies including sociolinguistic, discourse, strategic, grammatical, organizational, and pragmatic competencies. This will enable them to acquire the target language both implicitly and explicitly. One notable benefit is the active engagement of students in classroom activities, which is in contrast to traditional passive learning methods. Within the framework of CLT, students adopt a pivotal position, engaging actively in both the teaching and learning aspects, thereby converting classroom interaction into meaningful opportunities for language acquisition.
In addition, CLT enhances learners' motivation to acquire language skills by offering chances for authentic communication, allowing them to engage in English practice in diverse situations such as placing orders, engaging in discussions, negotiating, expressing complaints, or making decisions with their peers. This stands in contrast to conventional approaches, where learners may demonstrate proficiency in completing exercises but may still lack practical communication skills.
The benefits of CLT go beyond just improving language skills, as it also enhances both general knowledge and linguistic knowledge, regardless of the learners' proficiency levels. Richard (2006) emphasizes the inclusiveness of CLT activities, which cater to students with different language skills by providing meaningful tasks and real-life scenarios. Teachers also benefit from CLT by dedicating time to creating materials and tasks, actively engaging as facilitators during classroom activities, thus improving their teaching skills and expanding their knowledge through exposure to authentic materials.
To summarize, CLT provides significant benefits for both students and instructors, presenting a strong
36 argument for its extensive incorporation into English courses at the university level. When students move from academic settings to real-life and professional settings, incorporating Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) can greatly enhance their language skills and overall readiness.
4.2. Drawbacks of using CLT in the instruction and acquisition of English as a second language for university students
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), originally designed for native English speakers, faces difficulties when widely implemented to teach English as a Second Language (ESL) university students in non-native settings, specifically in Asian countries like Vietnam, Thailand, China, South Korea, and Bangladesh. Although the use of CLT provides advantages, there are various obstacles that prevent its successful implementation.
First and foremost, the existing conflicts in the Asian educational environment, particularly the continued use of written exams, hinder the widespread implementation of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).
The studies conducted by Dos Santos (2020), (Ahn & Kang, 2017), and Lee and Lee (2019) demonstrate that the widespread use of written exams often delays the integration of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) into real teaching and learning practices. The primary emphasis on achieving high scores in written exams in Asian educational systems leads to a divergence between the goals of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which prioritizes communication skills, and the prevailing culture that prioritizes exam performance.
Although CLT has the potential to be a compelling method for second language acquisition, it encounters resistance due to conflicts between its effectiveness and the current educational context.
Furthermore, although both teachers and students are aware of the effectiveness of CLT, there is a noticeable lack of confidence in its implementation. There are several reasons for this concern, such as a lack of understanding of CLT (Abrejo et al., 2019; Dos Santos, 2016, 2017), inadequate motivation for teachers (Ozsevik, 2010), a scarcity of genuine materials (Tomlinson, 2001), students' reluctance and limited time (Walia, 2012), the language and cultural backgrounds of learners Dos Santos (2020), and the presence of large class sizes (Weiner, 2012; Weiner & Jerome, 2016). The implementation of novel techniques faces inherent challenges, especially in Asian nations, where cultural elements and conventional educational methods contribute to a hesitancy among students to actively participate in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) activities.
In addition, although there is a wealth of research on CLT from the teacher's standpoint, there is a noticeable dearth of analysis from the learners' perspective, impeding a thorough comprehension of the most appropriate instructional approach. Natividad & Batang (2018) highlight the effectiveness of collaborative tasks and oral exercises based on authentic experiences for learners. However, teachers who do not have a clear understanding of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) principles may find it challenging to fully utilize its benefits. There is also opposition to CLT, as some argue that it places more importance on speaking fluently rather than speaking accurately. This can potentially confuse and demotivate students who are used to a more grammar-focused approach to learning in their previous education.
Inadequate teaching materials that adhere to CLT principles present additional challenges, as outdated resources hinder instructors in creating effective CLT activities. The adoption of CLT teaching materials requires authorization from educational authorities and modifications to current curricula, a complex and challenging process. Teachers must carefully select authentic materials that align with Eastern cultural nuances, as the availability of such materials varies between Western and Eastern contexts.
In addition, teachers who are used to traditional methods, such as the Grammar Translation Method (GTM), may feel uncertain about using the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach because they have not received formal training in it. Some educators are hesitant to adopt CLT in their teaching methods due to resistance to change and concerns about insufficient compensation. Ensuring a proper balance between the target language and the native language during Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) activities presents an extra difficulty. Over-reliance on English can potentially discourage students with lower language proficiency, while excessive use of the native language can potentially bore students with higher language proficiency.
To summarize, the obstacles to implementing Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in English as a Second Language (ESL) university settings are complex and involve various factors. These include but are not limited to: large class sizes, the beliefs held by both teachers and students, low levels of motivation, the format of examinations, the availability of suitable materials, time limitations, cultural backgrounds, and a lack of sufficient knowledge about CLT. These challenges collectively hinder the smooth incorporation of CLT into various educational settings, requiring a careful approach to tackle the specific circumstances present in each
37 learning environment.
4.3. Recommendations for effectively implementing the Central Limit Theorem (CLT) in the instruction of English as a second language within a university setting
Based on the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) mentioned earlier, the author suggests several ways to incorporate CLT into the university setting.
Primarily, contemporary textbooks are undergoing changes to include new teaching methodologies in both their design and content. By utilizing their understanding of CLT, teachers can effectively utilize these resources to organize a wide range of communication activities in the classroom, including problem-solving, interviews, role-plays, discussions, simulations, and information gap exchanges. Although students may face initial difficulties, they will eventually adapt to real-life situations, thereby improving their ability to communicate effectively. University students, with their extensive knowledge and understanding, are well- equipped to quickly adapt and make valuable contributions to CLT classes. Nunan (1989) argues that authentic materials, which refer to content not specifically created for language instruction, are essential for language acquisition. Being exposed to genuine materials, such as texts written by native authors and real-life reading and listening materials, helps learners develop the necessary linguistic and sociolinguistic skills that can be applied in academic and professional settings. The widespread adoption of technology, particularly the internet, enables educators to conveniently access genuine resources online and incorporate them into the learning process. Moreover, the process of acquiring cultural knowledge through genuine resources equips students with the ability to integrate effortlessly into various cultures they may come across while traveling or in English-speaking professional settings.
Secondly, educators have the ability to customize communication exercises according to the English language skills of the students, employing the structure proposed by Littlewood (1981). Functional communication activities prioritize the cultivation of particular language skills or functions, whereas social interaction activities entail conversations or discussions that require a more comprehensive command of the language. This dual approach enables teachers to convey new knowledge both implicitly and explicitly, creating a learning environment that promotes natural learning and increases the overall engagement of both teachers and students.
Thirdly, when it comes to the teacher's role in a communicative language teaching (CLT) class, adaptability is of utmost importance. Teachers ought to modify CLT methodologies in order to target particular facets of communicative competence during various periods. Dos Santos (2020) highlights the significance of students acquiring a diverse set of skills beyond mere verbal communication throughout the course. Hence, educators must demonstrate flexibility in their implementation of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach. Moreover, the suitability of implementing CLT varies among different classes. English major courses should be customized to cultivate distinct proficiencies such as auditory comprehension, oral communication, textual analysis, and written expression, or encompass interdisciplinary topics such as language translation and interpretation. Non-major classes should prioritize the development of communicative competence, with a particular emphasis on speaking abilities and fluency, rather than accuracy.
This approach differs from that of major classes. This refined approach guarantees the effectiveness of CLT in various academic environments.
Fourthly, according to Holliday (1994), a teaching method is considered appropriate when it shows sensitivity and adaptability to various classroom environments. Hence, educators proficient in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) carefully evaluate a range of communicative exercises that are appropriate for their courses, considering the practical setting, the requirements of the learners, and the designated curriculum.
Among the commonly used CLT activities, the information gap activity is notably popular. This activity engages students in real-life scenarios, prompting them to apply their language skills to share relevant information. To successfully complete conversational tasks, students need to utilize their interlanguage repertoire, which includes vocabulary, grammar, and communication strategies. Additional CLT activities, such as puzzles, games, interviews, surveys, map reading, providing instructions or directions, discussions culminating in a final decision, and identifying distinctions, present a range of choices for teaching specific skills. CLT advocates for an integrated approach, emphasizing that linguistic skills and communicative abilities should not be treated separately. This viewpoint is supported by Savignon (1997) and Brown (2014).
Fifthly, it is recommended that teachers do not ignore the importance of form-focused instruction. They should acknowledge that a lack of language knowledge hinders students' progress and negatively impacts the accuracy of their language usage (Harley & Swain, 1984; Spada & Lightbown, 1989). Hence, it is recommended to adopt a well-rounded approach that combines form-focused instruction (both implicit and
38 explicit) with meaning-focused instruction in order to improve students' language proficiency. Although there was initially confusion that Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) completely disregards explicit grammar instruction, scholars such as Thompson (1996) contend that incorporating grammar teaching within CLT is feasible. In this approach, learners can analyze conversations or texts to identify and understand grammatical structures. Modern educational resources, such as the "Life" series by National Geographic or the
"Introduction to English as a Second Language" by Cambridge, include exercises on grammar that are embedded within reading exercises. This allows for seamless integration with speaking exercises at different levels of proficiency. It is crucial to provide a sufficient amount of linguistic input, and teachers should not worry excessively about students struggling in CLT classes without a large amount of input. University students, who possess developed cognitive abilities and a broad range of knowledge, gradually adapt to engaging in real-life conversations at the university level. Teachers' provision of explicit instructions and inspiring guidance assists students in surmounting initial reservations and ultimately demonstrating advancements. CLT activities can obtain genuine materials from a range of discourse sources, such as teacher input, interactions with classmates, multimedia resources, online videos, and diverse platforms. Doughty &
Long (2003) highlight the significance of providing learners with authentic instances of communication from both native and non-native speakers involved in specific tasks. Although there is a difficulty in adjusting genuine materials to different levels of English proficiency, Brandl (2019) suggests that teachers should dedicate time to finding appropriate sources and creating supporting learning activities to facilitate the learning process. Furthermore, it is essential to guarantee the clarity of the information received. Brandl (2019) recommends the utilization of 'elaborating input' techniques, similar to those proposed by Doughty & Long (2003). These techniques include 'confirmation checks,' 'comprehension checks,' the use of body language, modified language with the help of visual aids, repetitions, and a slower speech rate. These strategies aim to enhance effective communication in CLT activities.
Additionally, it is essential to enhance the use of English in the classroom, as this offers numerous benefits when students actively participate in Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) classes. Nonetheless, the execution of CLT activities requires customized modifications to accommodate varying levels of English proficiency. This involves taking into account factors such as offering clear guidelines and instructions, establishing benchmarks for language usage, implementing regulations regarding the use of the first language (L1) in second language (L2) classes, and forbidding the practice of code-switching during CLT activities (Brandl, 2019). Preparatory measures, such as providing students with fundamental vocabulary or grammar necessary for future tasks, are vital. Providing explicit instructions helps students understand upcoming conversations in incomplete English, creating a favorable environment for authentic discourse. Furthermore, given the current trend of students using tools such as Google translation for convenience, it is crucial to adopt a deliberate approach to pre-task activities in order to reduce the dependence on translation during discussions.
Following primary tasks, educators have a crucial function in providing valuable input to assist learners in recognizing and correcting mistakes, thus improving their level of precision in the English language. Feedback, which includes both constructive criticism and positive encouragement, is important for both educators and students. Lyster & Ranta (1997) emphasize the importance of recasts, which involve teachers accurately rephrasing students' errors. On the other hand, Brandl (2019) suggests that 'direct corrective feedback,' which includes metalinguistic clues or clarification requests, is an effective strategy for correcting errors. The crucial aspect of giving feedback is of utmost importance, as it prevents the discouragement of students in their initial endeavors, as it may trigger anxiety and impede their eagerness to participate in English conversation.
Customizing feedback strategies to align with the class dynamics empowers students to acknowledge and derive knowledge from their errors.
It is crucial to diversify activities in CLT classes in order to foster a communicative culture in the classroom.
Courtney (2020) promotes engaging in activities that are both pleasurable and purposeful, involving active participation and being regularly practiced. He presents a range of activities specifically designed for the Vietnamese setting. These include 'Draw a dream house,' which promotes collaboration and relationship building within groups, 'I’m not just a number,' which focuses on question word order and personal narratives of classmates, 'Paragraph Pass,' which emphasizes grammar structure and idea development in writing, and 'Market Place,' which encourages the sharing of ideas among students. In addition to oral communication, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) can be effectively utilized to instruct various other abilities, such as reading, by employing techniques like jigsaw and gap information exercises. Similarly, writing can be enhanced by employing the method of idea augmentation for a specific topic. These multifaceted skill-oriented approaches can implicitly teach grammar.
In conclusion, educational authorities must prioritize improving teachers' pedagogical approaches by
39 implementing both offline and online training programs. These initiatives would offer educators easily accessible materials on Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and efficient design of CLT activities.
Moreover, integrating Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and modern language teaching methodologies into university courses for aspiring educators would provide them with the essential expertise and abilities. Educators who possess a deep understanding of CLT can convert conventional classes into CLT environments, leading to the improvement of students' ability to communicate effectively. This will align their achievements with the requirements of social and global communication.
5. Conclusion
In accordance with Larsen-Freema's perspective (2000), methodologies should not be construed as rigid directives dictating classroom conduct but rather as tools designed to augment a teacher's array of techniques and provide avenues for professional development (p. x). Therefore, the examination of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), encompassing its key aspects, implementation challenges, and the attitudes of educators and learners, aims to offer a comprehensive overview and encourage English teachers to integrate this methodology within their university contexts. It is crucial to acknowledge that each teaching method possesses inherent strengths and weaknesses, and their practical application may give rise to challenges within specific contexts. Given its objectives, fundamental characteristics, and guiding principles, CLT emerges as an efficacious approach for cultivating communicative competence among university students. The adept implementation of CLT stands to confer substantial benefits upon both educators and learners, exploiting diverse facets of language and general knowledge to enrich sociolinguistic and strategic competencies.
Throughout its historical evolution, CLT has encountered challenges stemming from contextual conflicts, pedagogical beliefs of teachers and students, insufficient CLT training, and ancillary factors. In aggregating extant research on CLT in university settings, the author aspires to equip university instructors with a deeper understanding of CLT and instill confidence in their participation in training courses focused on the design of CLT activities for their classes. The proposed applications of the CLT method in the university milieu are presented as recommendations, necessitating further empirical investigation to assess their effectiveness.
Furthermore, the article underscores the need for future research on CLT to pivot towards an exploration of students' perspectives, offering a differentiated viewpoint that could yield additional insights into the effective implementation of CLT, especially in the broader context of English as a Second Language (ESL) classes and within the specific milieu of Asian educational settings.
References
Abahussain, M. O. (2016). Implementing Communicative Language Teaching Method in Saudi Arabia:
Challenges Faced by Formative Year Teachers in State Schools. University of Stirling.
Abrejo, B., Sartaj, S., & Memon, S. (2019). English Language Teaching through Communicative Approach:
A Qualitative Study of Public Sector Colleges of Hyderabad, Sindh. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(5), 43. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.10n.5p.43
Ahn, S.-Y., & Kang, H.-S. (2017). South Korean university students’ perceptions of different English varieties and their contribution to the learning of English as a foreign language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(8), 712–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1242595 Al-Nasser, A. S. (2015). Problems of English language acquisition in Saudi Arabia: An exploratory-cum-
remedial study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(8), 1612–1619.
Alsalmi, A. A. (2014). Challenges confronting teachers of English language. (Master). Taif University.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford University Press.
Batawi, G. H. (2007). Exploring the use of CLT in Saudi Arabia. (Master). American University of Sharjah.
Borg, S. (2017). Teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. Routledge.
Brandl, K. (2019). Communicative Language Teaching in Action: Putting Principles to Work. Pearson Education, Inc.
Brandl, K., & Bauer, G. (2002). Students’ Perceptions of Novice Teaching Assistants’ Use of the Target Language in Beginning Foreign Language Classes: Preliminary Investigation (In W. Davis, J. Smith, R. Smith (Eds), Ready To Teach: Graduate Teaching Assistants Prepare for Today and for Tomorrow).
New Forums Press.
Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (6th ed.) (6th ed). NY Pearson Education.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistic, 1(1), 1–47.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton.
40 Courtney, D. (2020). Activities to Activate and Maintain a Communicative Classroom. English Teaching
Forum, 58(1), 10–21.
Dey, M. (2021). Psychological processes in language learning and teaching: Scoping review and future research directions. Journal of Psychological Perspective, 3, 105–110.
Dey, M. (2023). Book Review: Understanding Second Language Acquisition. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 26(1), 408–410.
Dey, M., Amelia, R., & Herawati, Y. W. (2023). Challenging the’Native Speaker’Ideal: The Impact of Native Speakerism on Language Education. Lingua Didaktika: Jurnal Bahasa Dan Pembelajaran Bahasa, 17(2), 232–245.
Dos Santos, L. M. (2016). Foreign Language Teachers’ Professional Development through Peer Observation Programme. English Language Teaching, 9(10), 39. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n10p39
Dos Santos, L. M. (2017). How do Teachers Make Sense of Peer Observation Professional Development in an Urban School. International Education Studies, 10(1), 255. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n1p255 Dos Santos, L. M. (2019). Science Lessons for Non-Science University Undergraduate Students: An
Application of Visual-Only Video Teaching Strategy. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 14(1), 308–311. https://doi.org/10.36478/jeasci.2019.308.311
Dos Santos, L. M. (2020). The Discussion of Communicative Language Teaching Approach in Language Classrooms, Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 2020. Journal of Education and E- Learning, 7(2), 104–109.
Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Blackwell Publishing.
Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion and its implications for second language teaching (In A. Davies, C. Criper, A. P. R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage). Edinburgh University Press.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge University Press.
Huang, S. H., & Yang, L. C. (2018). Teachers’ Needs in the Advancement of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in Taiwan. TESOL International Journal, 13(1), 100–117.
Hymes, D. (1971). Pidginization and creolization of languages. Cambridge University Press.
Iwashita, N., & Ngoc, K. M. (2012). A comparison of learners’ and teachers’ attitudes toward communicative language teaching at two universities in Vietnam. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 7, 25–49.
Jung, S. K., & Norton, B. (2002). Language planning in Korea: The new elementary English program (In Tollefson, J.W. (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Kachru, B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25, 1–14.
Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-understandings about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(5), 430–445.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370210156745
Kiato, S. K., & Kiato, K. (1996). Testing Communicative Competence. The TESOL Internet Journal, 2(5).
Larsen-Freema, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Lee, J. S., & Lee, K. (2019). Perceptions of English as an international language by Korean English-major and non-English-major students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(1), 76–89.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake: Negotiation of Form Incommunicative Classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
Natividad, M. R. A., & Batang, B. L. (2018). Students’ Perceptual Learning Styles and Attitudes toward Communicative Language Teaching. TESOL International Journal, 13(4), 104–120.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 279–295.
Ozsevik, Z. (2010). The use of communicative language teaching (CLT): Turkish EFL teachers’ perceived difficulties in implementing CLT in Turkey [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Illiois at Urbana-Champaign.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Longman.
Pham, H. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity. ELT Journal, 61(3), 193–201.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
41 Riggenbach, H., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). Promoting Oral Communication Skills (In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.),
Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language). University of California.
Saengboon, S. (2002). Beliefs of Thai EFL teachers about communicative language teaching [Doctoral dissertation]. Indiana University Bloomington.
Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Learners’ and teachers’ view on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 333–364.
Souriyavongsa, T., Rany, S., Abidin, M. J., & Mei, L. L. (2013). Factors causes students low English language learning: A case study in the National University of Laos. International Journal of English Language Education, 1(1), 179–192.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1989). Intensive ESL programs in Quebec primary schools. TESL Canada Journal, 7, 11–32.
Swalmeh, M. H., & Dey, M. (2023). Globalization and the increasing demand for spoken English teachers.
Research Journal in Advanced Humanities, 4(2).
Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal, 50(1), 9–
15.
Tomlinson, B. (2001). Humanising the Coursebook. Humanising Language Teaching, 3(5).
Walia, D. N. (2012). Traditional teaching methods vs. CLT: A study. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 3(1), 125–131.
Weiner, L. (2012). The future of our schools: Teachers unions and social justice. Haymarket Books.
Weiner, L., & Jerome, D. (2016). Urban teaching: The essentials (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
West, A. J. (2016). Adaptation of Communicative Language Teaching Methodology to an English Textbook for English Language Learning of NIDA Students. PASAA, 52, 25–52.
Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
